Nukes and votes

Monday

Apr 14, 2008 at 6:52 AMApr 14, 2008 at 6:53 AM

Steve Williams-Opinion Page Editor

Yes, we keep talking here about the enormous potential of nuclear power plants, not only as a way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but as a clear solution to the Greens' drive to cut into fossil fuels' contribution to 'global warming.'

So it's once again depressing to know that California's Legislature again rejected a reasonable, economical and effective solution to those problems.Two bills authored by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, that would have lifted a 32-year ban on new California nuclear power plants were killed in committee this week on straight party-line votes. Similar DeVore bills were killed last year.

Isn't in bitterly ironic that Democrats, in thrall to environmental activists, rant about high energy costs and wring their hands over the presumed threat of greenhouse gases, yet repeatedly reject proposals that effectively can address both issues?

The Nuclear Energy Institute says the nation's 103 nuclear reactors have been the lowest-cost source of electricity for years compared with coal-fired plants, natural-gas plants and oil-fired plants.

We disagree with the apparent Democrat consensus that greenhouse gases pose grave danger to the climate or even contribute substantially to so-called global warming. Carbon dioxide amounts to a tiny fraction of all greenhouse gases, and man-made CO2 amounts to a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction. But even if this infinitesimal amount threatens climate devastation, it makes it all the more absurd for Democrats to reject nuclear power plants, given that they emit zero levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

As an Orange County Register editorial noted last week, nuclear power already safely provides about 20 percent of all U.S. electricity and 13 percent of California's. It's even more elsewhere — Japan, 25 percent; South Korea, 40 percent; Sweden, half; and France, 78 percent.

As the Register also points out, Mr. DeVore notes that dozens of applications are in the pipeline around the nation for new nuclear power plants. But in California, the Legislature won't let the process get under way.

Even Green advocates acknowledge not only the clear benefits of nuclear power, but its inevitability. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, wrote in the Washington Post that wind and solar power are "intermittent and unpredictable," therefore cannot replace coal and hydroelectric power. "Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple," he wrote.

As we said, Democrat Legislators are in thrall to the Greens, so much so that even in the face of legitimate, logical solutions to the problems of CO2 emissions and a reduction in the nation's need for foreign oil and coal-fired electrical plant, the Democrats opt for votes instead of the public good.